socofpowerСоциология властиSociology of Power2074-04922413-144XThe Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration10.22394/2074-0492-2022-4-156-181socofpower-36Research ArticleСТАТЬИARTICLESКак говорить без слов: переосмысляя материальность, агентность и коммуникативную компетентность в виртуальной реальностиHow to Speak Silently — Rethinking Materiality, Agency, and Communicative Competence in Virtual Realityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0874-5272ЕрофееваМ. А.ErofeevaM. A.

Ерофеева Мария Александровна — кандидат социологических наук, научный сотрудник Центра социологических исследований; доцент факультета социальных наук 

Москва

Erofeeva Maria Aleksandrovna — Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Researcher at the Center for Sociological Research; Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Social Sciences

Moscow

erofeevama@ranepa.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7347-099XКловайтН.KlowaitN.

Кловайт Нильс — научный сотрудник Центра перспективных социальных исследований; преподаватель факультета социальных наук 

Москва

Klowait Nils — Research Fellow at the Center for Innovative Social Research; Lecturer of the Faculty of Social Sciences

Moscow

nils.klowait@gmail.comЗабабуринД. Р.ZababurinD. R.

Забабурин Денис Романович — студент магистратуры «Психология управления» ИОН 

Москва

Zababurin Denis Romanovich — student of the Master’s degree programme “Psychology of management”

Moscow

denzababurin@gmail.comРАНХиГС; МВШСЭНРоссияRANEPA; MSSESRussian FederationРАНХиГСРоссияRANEPARussian Federation202229012025343-4156181Copyright © Ерофеева М.А., Кловайт Н., Забабурин Д.Р., 20252025Ерофеева М.А., Кловайт Н., Забабурин Д.Р.Erofeeva M.A., Klowait N., Zababurin D.R.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://socofpower.ranepa.ru/jour/article/view/36

Данная статья представляет собой попытку реконцептуализации материальной агентности для целей микросоциологии. В то время как мыслители поворота к материальному предлагают новые концептуальные ресурсы для разговора о нечеловеческих онтологиях, исследователи взаимодействия пытаются пересобрать социальную ситуацию, раздробленную телекоммуникационными технологиями. В перспективе конверсационного анализа исследовалась в основном конститутивная роль технических объектов, однако они также могут нарушать текущие проекты действия участников и при этом оставаться «невидимыми и незамечаемыми», как, например, задержка в видеозвонках. Попытка рассмотрения неподотчетных частей материального контекста ставит под удар сами основания конверс-аналитического проекта, поскольку аналитическая позиция отделяется от позиции участников взаимодействия. В противоположность этому взгляду мы предлагаем концептуализацию связи между участником и средой взаимодействия как источника агентности, которая позволяет сохранить полностью эмную перспективу. Мы иллюстрируем наши тезисы на основании анализа кейса взаимодействия между глухим и слышащим участником в социальном приложении в виртуальной реальности VRChat. Данный кейс является частью более обширного этнографического исследования сообщества Глухих в виртуальной реальности, проводившегося нашей командой на протяжении трех месяцев. В рассматриваемом кейсе вир- 157 туальные карандаши, оставляющие долговечные надписи в воздухе, используются участниками для коммуникации. Мы анализируем очень простую вопрос-ответную последовательность и показываем, что: участники относятся к производимым надписям как к материальным; слышащий участник оказывается менее способен к коммуникации в этом пространстве, чем Глухой; ответ на вопрос производится совместно благодаря инструкционной работе Глухого участника. В целом полученные результаты позволяют сделать следующие выводы о природе материальности, агентности и коммуникативной компетентности: 1) материальность среды не является чисто аналитической категорией, а конструируется участниками взаимодействия; 2) агентность участников зависит от среды и в то же время имеет распределенный характер; 3) коммуникативная компетентность не связана напрямую с «внутренними» характеристиками агента, такими как атипичность.

While thinkers of the material turn offer new conceptual resources for talking about non-human ontologies, interaction researchers are trying to reassemble the social situation fragmented by telecommunication. Conversation analysts tend to see technical objects in their situation-constitutive role, but they can also disrupt the current projects of the participants whilst remaining “unseen and unnoticed” (e.g. Zoom delays). We propose a conceptualization of the relationship between the participant and the interaction environment as a source of agency, which makes it possible to preserve an emic perspective. We illustrate our thesis by analyzing a case study of interaction between a Deaf and a hearing participant in VRChat.

In this case, virtual pencils that leave durable inscriptions in the air are usedand-answer by participants sequence for and communication demonstrate . thatWe:  analyzethe participants a simple  questiontreat the- inscriptions as material; the hearing participant is less capable of communicating in this space than the Deaf person; the answer to the question is produced jointly due to the instructional work of the Deaf participant. The results allow us to draw the following conclusions about the nature of materiality, agency and communicative competence: 1) the materiality of the environment is not a purely analytical category, but is constructed by the participants in the interaction;  2) the agency of the participants depends on the environment and at the same time has a distributed character; 3) communicative competence is not directly related to the “internal” characteristics of the agent, such as atypicality.

экологический поворотэтнометодология и конверсационный анализмультимодальностьатипичная коммуникацияecological turnethnomethodology and conversation analysismultimodalityatypical interactionvirtual realityСтатья подготовлена в рамках научно-исследовательской работы Центра социологических исследований РАНХиГС «Анализ повседневных практик использования технологических устройств: интервенция, адаптация, ассимиляция» (2022).This text was prepared in the context of the research project “Analyzing everyday practices of device use: intervention, adaptation, assimilation” (2022) conducted by the Center for Sociological Research, RANEPA.ReferencesЕрофеева М. А. (2021) Интерсубъективность в асимметричном взаимодействии. Журнал исследований социальной политики, 19(4): 635–650. — in Russ.Erofeeva M. (2021) Achieving Intersubjectivity in Asymmetric Interaction. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 19(4): 635–650.Зизина О. (2019) Феномен вежливого невнимания в VRChat. Блог Лаборатории Виртуальной Реальности МВШСЭН. https://www.vrstudies.ru/ru/civil-inattention-vrchat/Zizina O. (2019) The phenomenon of polite inattention in VR Chat. Blog of the MSSES Virtual Reality Laboratory. https://www.vrstudies.ru/ru/civil-inattention-vrchat/Корбут А. М. (2021) Одомашнивание искусственного интеллекта: умные колонки и трансформация повседневной жизни. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 1: 193–216.Korbut A. M. (2021) Domestication of Artificial Intelligence: Smart Speakers and Transformation of Everyday Life. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 1: 193–216. — in Russ.Avgustis I., Oloff F. (2022) Bringing smartphone users (back) into the conversation. 17th International Pragmatics Conference, Panel “Technology use in social interaction: enabling vs. constraining participation”, 27 June — 2 July, Winterthur, Switzerland (online).Avgustis I., Oloff F. (2022) Bringing smartphone users (back) into the conversation. 17th International Pragmatics Conference, Panel “Technology use in social interaction: enabling vs. constraining participation”, 27 June — 2 July, Winterthur, Switzerland (online).Brassac C., Fixmer P., Mondada L., Vinck D. (2008) Interweaving Objects, Gestures, and Talk in Context. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3): 208–233.Brassac C., Fixmer P., Mondada L., Vinck D. (2008) Interweaving Objects, Gestures, and Talk in Context. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3): 208–233.Caronia L., Cooren F. (2014) Decentering our analytical position: The dialogicity of things. Discourse & Communication, 8(1): 41–61.Caronia L., Cooren F. (2014) Decentering our analytical position: The dialogicity of things. Discourse & Communication, 8(1): 41–61.Caronia L., Mortari L. (2015) The agency of things: how spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit. Social Semiotics, 25(4): 401–422.Caronia L., Mortari L. (2015) The agency of things: how spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit. Social Semiotics, 25(4): 401–422.Cetina K. K. (1997) Sociality with Objects. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4): 1–30.Cetina K. K. (1997) Sociality with Objects. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4): 1–30.Day D., Wagner J. (2014) Objects as tools for talk. M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, M. Rauniomaa (eds.) Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Day D., Wagner J. (2014) Objects as tools for talk. M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, M. Rauniomaa (eds.) Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Erofeeva M. (2021) Achieving Intersubjectivity in Asymmetric Interaction. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 19(4): 635–650.Erofeeva M. (2021) Achieving Intersubjectivity in Asymmetric Interaction. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 19(4): 635–650.Fox B. A., Heinemann T. (2015) The Alignment of Manual and Verbal Displays in Requests for the Repair of an Object. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3): 342–362.Fox B. A., Heinemann T. (2015) The Alignment of Manual and Verbal Displays in Requests for the Repair of an Object. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3): 342–362.Gibson J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Gibson J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Goffman E. (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania publications in conduct and communication, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Goffman E. (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania publications in conduct and communication, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Goode D. (1994) A World without Words: The Social Construction of Children Born Deaf and Blind, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Goode D. (1994) A World without Words: The Social Construction of Children Born Deaf and Blind, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Goodwin C. (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Language, thought, and culture, New York, London: Academic Press.Goodwin C. (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Language, thought, and culture, New York, London: Academic Press.Goodwin C. (1995) Co-Constructing Meaning in Conversations With an Aphasie Man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3): 233–260.Goodwin C. (1995) Co-Constructing Meaning in Conversations With an Aphasie Man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3): 233–260.Goodwin C. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10): 1489–1522.Goodwin C. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10): 1489–1522.Goodwin C. (2018) Co-operative action. Learning in doing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Goodwin C. (2018) Co-operative action. Learning in doing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Helping Hands mission statement (n.d). Retrieved from. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KFTiPRlER_Lf0aIbqfHDOWGqsl9aoyY2DGzeoqz5zD0/editHelping Hands mission statement (n.d). Retrieved from. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KFTiPRlER_Lf0aIbqfHDOWGqsl9aoyY2DGzeoqz5zD0/editHutchby I. (2001) Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet, Cambridge: Polity.Hutchby I. (2001) Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet, Cambridge: Polity.Kendon A. (2009) Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (Transf. to digital printing). Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Vol. 7. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Kendon A. (2009) Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (Transf. to digital printing). Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Vol. 7. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Klowait N. O. (2019) Interactionism in the age of ubiquitous telecommunication. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5): 605–621.Klowait N. O. (2019) Interactionism in the age of ubiquitous telecommunication. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5): 605–621.Cetina K. K. (2009) The Synthetic Situation: Interactionism for a Global World. Symbolic Interaction, 32: 61–87.Cetina K. K. (2009) The Synthetic Situation: Interactionism for a Global World. Symbolic Interaction, 32: 61–87.Latour B. (1996) On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4): 228–245.Latour B. (1996) On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4): 228–245.Latour B. (1994) On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2): 29–64.Latour B. (1994) On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2): 29–64.Latour B. (2016) How Better to Register the Agency of Things. M. Matheson (eds.) The Tanner lectures on human values, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press: 79–117. Latour B. (1993) We have never been modern, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Latour B. (2016) How Better to Register the Agency of Things. M. Matheson (eds.) The Tanner lectures on human values, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press: 79–117. Latour B. (1993) We have never been modern, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Licoppe C., Luff P. K., Heath C., Kuzuoka H., Yamashita N., Tuncer S. (2017) Showing Objects. G. Mark, S. Fussell, C. Lampe, m. Schraefel, J P. Hourcade, C. Appert, D. Wigdor (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, USA: ACM: 5295–5306.Licoppe C., Luff P. K., Heath C., Kuzuoka H., Yamashita N., Tuncer S. (2017) Showing Objects. G. Mark, S. Fussell, C. Lampe, m. Schraefel, J P. Hourcade, C. Appert, D. Wigdor (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, USA: ACM: 5295–5306.Lindström J. K., Norrby C., Wide C., Nilsson J. (2017) Intersubjectivity at the counter: Artefacts and multimodal interaction in theatre box office encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 108: 81–97.Lindström J. K., Norrby C., Wide C., Nilsson J. (2017) Intersubjectivity at the counter: Artefacts and multimodal interaction in theatre box office encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 108: 81–97.Luff P., Heath C., Kuzuoka H., Hindmarsh J., Yamazak, K., Oyama S. (2003) Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Human–Computer Interaction, 18(1-2): 51–84.Luff P., Heath C., Kuzuoka H., Hindmarsh J., Yamazak, K., Oyama S. (2003) Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Human–Computer Interaction, 18(1-2): 51–84.Mondada L. (2016) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3): 336–366.Mondada L. (2016) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3): 336–366.Mondada L. (2019) Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145: 47–62.Mondada L. (2019) Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145: 47–62.Mondada L. (2001) Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcriptionMondada L. (2001) Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcriptionNevile M. (2015) The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2): 121–151.Nevile M. (2015) The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2): 121–151.Nevile M., Haddington P., Heinemann T., Rauniomaa M. (2014) Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Nevile M., Haddington P., Heinemann T., Rauniomaa M. (2014) Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Pels D., Hetherington K., Vandenberghe F. (2002) The Status of the Object. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6): 1–21.Pels D., Hetherington K., Vandenberghe F. (2002) The Status of the Object. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6): 1–21.Pinch T. J., Bijker W. E. (1984) The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science, 14: 399–441.Pinch T. J., Bijker W. E. (1984) The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science, 14: 399–441.Schegloff E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schegloff E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Seuren L. M., Wherton J., Greenhalgh T., Shaw S. E. (2021) Whose turn is it anyway? Latencymatics, 172: 63–78.Seuren L. M., Wherton J., Greenhalgh T., Shaw S. E. (2021) Whose turn is it anyway? Latencymatics, 172: 63–78.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.